About your Search

20110701
20110731
STATION
CSPAN 161
LANGUAGE
English 161
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 161 (some duplicates have been removed)
, and everything, they give big tax breaks for the oil companies. the big manufacturers. they're taking jobs away from us. and why they think it is best to do that. i need an answer to that, because i work 40 years of my life, and now i'm disabled. and now they're talking about cutting everything. i just don't think -- i've even put my life on the line for this country, vietnam. why they think it's the right thing to do. host: thanks for your call. next up, a comment from hewitt, texas. tony, a republican there. good morning. caller: good morning. how's everybody there this morning? host: it's a little hot both temperature-wise and internally i think here. caller: yeah. you know, we deal with a few facts here this morning. that cut, cap and balance that was passed did two things that everybody just is totally bent out of shape about. one of which is that it would raise the debt ceiling, and we would give that community organizer everything he wanted. it also, at the time, would say that the united states would even have a downgrade in its debt rating. and what do we do? well, you got the presiden
the impact. but i'm wondering, two of the candidates will be coming out after this big debate here in washington. does that give an advantage or a disadvantage or is it unclear based on the outcome? >> well, it's unclear based on the outcome certainly. the congresswoman and the congressman have both been very strong in their opposition. >> no compromise. right? >> that will appeal to many people in the base of the party. and i think what you've heard from some of the other candidates is somewhat more equivocal position. though john huntsman this week came out strongly for the boehner plan and said it was the only plan going and that the republicans and everybody ought to get behind it. congresswoman bachmann in particular, i think, has staked out that kind of tea party position. and she'll probably benefit from that. i think the other candidates are trying to get a piece of that, but try to go more broadly. >> i think bachmann and to a certain extent paul also risk some pleasure of backlash, or could in their don't raise the ceiling at all and their positions, playing down is a pot
was just a time- passer and he wasn't even a big enough presence for the obama administration to fight for him to be their secretary of health and human services. i don't necessarily mean it as an insult to him or to the senate but let's face it, most of our elected officials even in the world's greatest deliberative chamber are interchangeable. >> you wrote this. "in a world where our choices aren't limited to john boehner and nancy pelosi, the survivors envy the dead." >> yes, i think that's true. >> and explain that? >> what "the declaration of independents" is about is how throughout virtually every aspect of our lives we are seeing greater individualization, personalization, the ability to mongrelize and hybridize our lives and our enjoyments and our very identities, and yet in politics we are still stuck between dr. jekyll and mr. hyde it's the wolf man versus frankenstein. who is really going to get fired up over nancy pelosi on the one hand or john boehner on the other. they are proxies or short-hands for the incredibly narrow range of choice that we actually have in elected of
been seen as the party of big spending in government. right now, voters are in a position where they want to see less spending. one gets down to specifics, they are more on the side of democrats. the paul ryan plan is very unpopular but the measures the democrats propose like increasing taxes on the wealthy and ending subsidies for corporations is very popular the democrats need to reach a credibility threshold on fiscal issues. they need to be willing to say that we need more government accountability. if they can agree to a down payment and get a boat on the record of cutting spending, it helps them reach that far. they want to move to a larger debate where the public is on their side about priorities and what is the next step. they want to from that republicans want to eliminate medicare for those under 55. they can cut some things that will affect the middle class since seniors but we want to end the subsidies for oil companies and the jets owners. if they can get bear rather than debate about cutting spending more or less, going into 2012, there will be a good position. hos
, onewas coming to a a of the big interests in alo and huffington post, walter manchin the field, one of the first things that people said to me was, aol lost his way not because of the business model but because of the community and the ability for people to actually comment on what was happening. as i travel around, whether people commenting on articles they saw or things that they did, one of the most disappointing things that happened at the aol's community- based was not being able to comment. all the common in technology was stripped off of the company. we went from the most engage community to the least engaged in the world. i think that area and i brought that back. when aol went down, they took that away. a lot of the features in facebook were things that he grew up using on a a well. it's an important part of our business in the future. >> for those of us old enough, we remember when you dial up aol and you hear that iconic modem sound and the "you've got mail" peace. to go back to that, you have a startup incubating in a large corporation. is it important for the user to kn
.5 trillion does not make any of the big issues go away. sooner or later republicans are going to have to swallow some revenue increases. host: what is the purpose of today's news conference from the president? caller: the purpose for the president is to set a delicate balance. on the one hand he wants to claim the political high ground, i assume, saying that he tried and pushed for historic bipartisan achievement. unfortunately, we will like it there. the reason is that republicans will not sign on to a bold, $1 trillion tax overhaul. so, he wants to show the voters that he is the big negotiator. everything that he said the revlon in 2008. but he does not want to poison the well to make these negotiations for the rest of the week. >> what is the main message coming from republicans going into this meeting? >> it would seem that their main message is probably going to stay the same period that we are for a big deal, but not a big tax increase. or any tax increase. once again they will be challenged to expand on this sharp rhetorical edge. id is a distinction without much of a differenc
it is that momentous. the flurry of talk last week about going big and swinging for the fences were underscoring the idea of the president and the speaker to persuade the democratic and republican rank- and-file to go for something as big as $4 trillion. it was a long shot to begin with. both sides decided to spend a few days pursuing this long shot and it turns out that speaker behner blinked first. he was the first one to realize publicly that he did not have the votes in his own troops to get this through because it would require too much. host: if the number goes down from $4 trillion, what gets left behind? guest: you go from $4 trillion down to something. the fall back number we think is $2.50 trillion. that is the amount of deficit reduction that would be necessary to get republicans to vote for an equivalent amount of debt ceiling increase. that is what is required to keep the treasury in the flush to get for the next election. that is the number and we know that the vice president had six members of congress and they were pretty close. they were at about $2 trillion. entirely from the s
, a big thank-you to the staff, without mean, this would not have been possible, as usual. thank you very much for all you did. [applause] let me just say, we have a lot of work to do. let's make hay with the sunshine. those involved in the press conference, could you please go immediately to grand ballroom be because we are late. [laughter] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> wrapping up this session of the national governors' association from salt lake city. we just heard from washington state governor, the chair for this summer's conference. we will have more events throughout the weekend. tomorrow afternoon o'clock 30, the session on remembering 9/11, protecting borders and communities. on sunday at 1:30, the closing session. you will also be able to find all the segments on line in their entirety at c-span.org -- online in their entirety at c- span.org. it >> this weekend, live from salt lake city, the nation's governors look at the net the -- lessons of 9/11, and the featured speaker talks competitivenes
was ready to try again to do something big to control the debt. the ensuing days, the two sides forged common ground on the strategy raising the debt limit and cutting more than $4 trillion out of the federal budget that would take place through 2021. the speaker put out a statement in connection with the comments he made to the press yesterday. here is a bit of it for you. he said: in the end, he writes, we couldn't connect. not because of different importants, but different visions for our country. the president is emphatic taxes have to be raised. i know that tax increases destroy jobs. the next page, mr. boehner goes on to say, the president is adamant we can't make changes to entitlement program. i know the programs won't be there for my daughter's generation unless significant action is taken now. i have decided to end conversations with the white house and begin conversations with the leaders in the senate in an effort to find a path forward. again, the leaders are going to the white house today to meet with the president. the minority leader also putting out a statement becaus
. host: mississippi, janet is next. caller: i feel as long as our politicians are bought by big corporations, we cannot trust the word that they say. they will do what the corporations want. the supreme court gave corporations the right to be individuals. they do not have rights like individuals. they are individuals themselves but they should not make the decisions as far as who represents the people. a lot of people would call me ignorant, but i know how to balance my checkbook and if these people cannot balance their checkbook, they need to go home and learn how to. host: fixed the political experts from the book -- brookings institution says -- that they hash it out in private first. your thoughts? caller: my thought is that if people cannot get together and talk it out, compromise, what is the use of having separate get together is? tempore i know that i sound ignorant, but people need to sit down in a circle and come to a conclusion. host: another twitter message from boring file clerk, writing -- host: chattanooga, tennessee. gerry, go ahead. caller: thank you for c-span.
call, while we're waiting, is from big sandy, texas. scott is a republican. good morning. caller: yes, susan, if i were a republican and in the negotiations, i would continue to bring up the immorality that the democrats are willing to -- and the fact that they're willing to steal the liberty of future generations with this humongous debt. they need to hold their feet to the fire, and in the end, obama and the democrats will have to come around. there's no doubt about it. we've got the upper hand. even though you've got the press on the president's side, and i want all these democrats that have called in here supporting obama this morning, just ask yourself, are you honestly better off? has his policies actually helped this country? or is it sending this country to oblivion? none of his policies, none of his stimulus, none of it has worked. not one single bit of it. we're worse off now than when he took office, and we're continuing to go downhill. it's time this iron-headed fool relent and let the adults take over. host: thanks for your call. scott from big sandy, texas. here is speak
been going on now since the big deal talks between boehner and obama broke down on friday among all the congressional leaders on how to fix basically one problem. that is, how long the debt limit increase we will do. they have not been able to resolve that problem. host: do you think there's a chance the house really will leave town? guest: i do not know. no one would confirm that. there were rumors yesterday, mainly from democrats. republicans said they had heard nothing like that. democrats also said they would be surprised if the house would do that. it will look terrible with this crisis hanging over the nation. crisis hanging over the nation. it has happened in on other occasions. host: lori montgomery, according to the senate schedule, harry reid will be announcing the schedule at 11:00 a.m. have you heard anything? guest: i have not. when i left last night, it was not clear. they were still planning to proceed as they have been talking about for a week. that is, when the house bill comes over, they want to tilt it -- to kill it. it's not clear how they will do that. will they
with big business. they break stories on big business is being corrupt. then you have the right of center papers that are obsessed with big corporations -- i mean, with big government. there. it is cool parity i am not for the outing -- the suppression of the adding of corrupt republicans. there is a huge difference. i am totally for all of these republican screwballs to get into trouble getting fired or quit saying today that they get caught, not stretching out for three ludicrous unbelievably weeks. thank you very much, congressman weiner. thank you. i loved every second of it, congressman weiner. especially the hack part. i am the hacker. so we are fighting back. we are entering a phase where objective and neutral journalism is now laughable thing of the fast. it does not exist. i met the people that trotter pretzel themselves into being totally neutral. no one is neutral in the entire world. you have used the cudgel of false neutrality as a means to push the american narrative to the left for the last 40 years. to hell with it. i am sorry that i am being honest and i believe in freedo
choices today -- do we want to keep repeating ourselves or do we want to look at the big car rise in and do inspirational things we have already challenged ourselves to do? my generation, together with those that followed, built the isf. today anash @ -- nasa and the others want to touch an asteroid and move to mars. the status quo is no longer exceptional. -- acceptable. the students and early career scientist had a ton of energy and enthusiasm. they are excited about the chance to do something new, to be it on the ground floor of the next big frontier of human exploration. to put their big ideas into practice, and they should be. if you are studying in a stems discipline today, you love a great career ahead you, not just at nasa but at other government agencies and academia. when that final shuttle landing occurs, and the cheers and jeers subside, we will keep on moving to where we want to go next. your kids and my grandkids will do things that today we can barely dreamed of. our nation has made great progress the west's history by innovating solutions to meet grand challenges,
chart has given a lot over the years. we call it the big shot. in the last few years, change has happened in terms of the long-term stability, brief moments of disturbance, changes in 60 years of stability. we reinvented work practices and other practices. what has happened now is in the last 10 years, we are moving to a different kind of infrastructure proven by the digital loss of competition. now we find having a world in which we have constant disruption nearly every year. the challenge is how do you start to leverage that rather than fear that in terms of driving innovation in? it will not slow down for the next 30 or 40 years. let me say this personally. i can recapitulate the last 10 years of my life. it took me from this class to cloud computing come into graphic processing, that is scientific computing a fraction of the cost, now into a very limited form of competing. i have had to relearn almost everything i knew as a computer scientist. dealing with the plains regarding amazon and microsoft. i had to think about how to move these processing units. there are single proc
if a big bank goes under. second, it said to wall street firms, you can't take the same kind of reckless risks that led to the crisis. and third, it put in place the stronger -- the strongest consumer protections in history. now, to make sure that these protections worked - so ordinary people were dealt with fairly, so they could make informed decisions about their finances - we didn't just change the law. we changed the way the government did business. for years, the job of protecting consumers was divided up in a lot of different agencies. so if you had a problem with a mortgage lender, you called one place. if you had a problem with a credit card company, you called somebody else. it meant there were a lot of people who were responsible, but that meant nobody was responsible. and we changed that. we cut the bureaucracy and put one consumer watchdog in charge, with just one job -- looking out for regular people in the financial system. now, this is an idea that i got from elizabeth warren, who i first met years ago. back then -- this is long before the financial crisis -- elizabeth wa
the state of pennsylvania has come in and said defaulting on the debt is not that big a deal. it can be, quote in his words, easily managed. does the senator from arizona agree with that thinking? mr. mccain: as the senator may know, i came to the floor a couple of days ago and made that comment, and the senator from illinois and i are in agreement, point number one. you can prioritize -- i think the senator and every economist i know literally would agree. you can prioritize for awhile where you want what remaining money is left. but the message you send to the world, not just our markets but to the world, that the united states of america is going to default on its debts is a totally unacceptable scenario and beneath a great nation. we are in agreement, number one. mr. durbin: amen. mr. mccain: number two is that to insist, to insist that any agreement is based on the passage through the united states senate of a balanced budget amendment to the constitution of the united states, as i said before, is not fair to the american people because, because the terrible obstructionists on this
on energy prices. by the way, there was a big argument on at in "the economist." what has happened is, information technology greatly increase liquidity has transformed that. there is not a consensus within the financial pages that people talk about the impact of speculation. it is a given. republicans are trying to keep them from doing anything about speculation. those are the had on a tax that we have. there is a more subtle one, this attack on a risk retention. i believe that risk retention is the single most important piece of this bill. you know, the response when we used to say there was a problem, what was supposed to be the substitute for risk retention -- the rating agencies. the rating agencies were the ones. you did not need to have the latter worry about this because you could go ask the rating region -- agencies. now, the rating agencies are trying to overdo it. the people who told us that subprime loans were good are now telling us that it is not good. i think they were wrong in both times. that is one of the things that i really wanted to address now. it does of all me
, this is a debate about our economy, and frankly is a big debate about the future of our country. until recently, the president was demanding that the congress increased the debt limit with no strings attached. as a matter of fact, the treasury secretary sent me a letter two days after we were sworn in demanding that we give him a clean increase in the debt limit. i responded and told the treasury secretary at the american people would not tolerate a clean increase in the debt ceiling unless there was serious spending cuts attached and will reform in the way we spent the american people's money. i went to new york city in may and gave a speech to the new york economic club where i outlined the challenges we were facing and i made it clear that we would not increase the debt limit for the cuts that exceeded that increase in the debt limit and that there would be no new taxes and that there would be serious spending reforms put in place. it is time to get serious. i'm confident that the leaders here in the congress can act, the white house will give serious, we will. >> your own aides say that the
: this is an upper biggest problem. we are left with a big deficit. all they talk about is cutting. -- host: we will have to leave it there. when it comes to government spending issues are concerned, that is what we are weighing in right now. good morning, james, independent line. caller: 5 believe the oil companies and big businesses should pay their fair share. republicans are nothing but a bunch of lawyers. they have -- lawyers. -- liars. they have been line ever since george bush was in there. host: what kind of spending and programs are you talking about? caller: all of their subsidies and not paying any taxes. host: we will leave it there. please turn down your television sets when you call in. florida, this is a comment from twitter. another call from minnesota this morning, what to cut what to keep? caller: i am a republican. it is hard to hear that we are the party of no, no, no. at the federal level, of our government has shut down because they cannot come together. republican-led states that do not have cannot of raising of taxes, the states are not in a deficit and not in a shutdown
went to that were big money because i grew up in a middle-class home, it cost $22,000 to go, you played tennis and eight food. host: there are pictures this morning that showed a couple of scenes from inside the white house. this is from "the washington post." this is a picture of first lady betty ford and her daughter susan. the description says, "the first lady and daughter susan killed time and the president's office in 1975. in 1980, the pair lost national breast cancer awareness month. mrs. ford became an awareness for early detection. " there's a picture for 1979 and this shows mrs. ford said in a longtime -- alongside liza minnelli and liza minnelli at studio 54. the next one shows mrs. ford, that she was quite the denser and loved to do so. those pictures are all found in "the washington post"this morning. we're talking about the passing of betty ford died yesterday. we are taking your comments and tweets on the subject. new york, republican line, go ahead. caller: good morning. i want to say a few things. i thought betty ford was very innovative and incredibly supportive and sh
for the tabloids. host: what about the broadsheets? guest: it is known occasionally. there was a big scandal about mp's expenses last year, which came from information that is the voice of -- information that is the will serve and got on a computer disk. my newspaper paid for that because they thought it was in the public interest. that is a rare instance of a broadsheet paper paying for information. for the tabloids, we call it checkbook journalism. salacious information about a night out on the town with a celebrity or pop star or encounters with celebrities. that culture has grown and become more insidious over the past 20 or 30 years. host: how would you describe, to help put it in perspective -- by the way, we will put the numbers on the screen as we continue this conversation about the phone hacking investigation in the u.k. prime minister cameron spoke this morning at a problem about it and we carry that live on c- span -- spoke this morning in parliament about it and we carry that live on c-span2. we carry rupert murdoch and rebekah brooks yesterday and we will speak about that. how do you
. well, yes and no. in their derrick the church was the big power. kings and queens could not move without the permission of the church. nowadays it is big business. when you have big business influence washington, d.c., people like yourself, this is what you are going to get. you cannot have foxes guarding the hen house. host: all right. your response. guest: if you talk about specific tax credits, i think he's right. i don't think it is just big business. i think it is the aarp, i think it is the big labor unions. i think it is everybody. the whole fact is the federal the whole fact is the federal government is too big and it is in areas it shouldn't be. if you read the constitution, you also read the enumerated powers which gives limited powers to the federal government and specifically states everything not listed here is reserved for the people in the states. the reason we have a $3.6 trillion, $3.7 trillion budget, is a trillion and a half of that or more is stuff that's not our responsibility in the first place. sho look, i'm one of the few republicans that stands up and say
it extreme, radical. imagine that. only a big spending washington liberal could think it would be radical to require washington to start living within its means like families have been doing for years. and so frankly american families would say it's about time, welcome to the party. and instead some people think you can just live in this fantasy land where you can keep tax, taxing, spending, borrowing money from china and act like the day of wreckening never is never going to come and kick the -- wrenging is never going to come and kick the can down the road. it's time to say enough is new. we're going to deal with our problems nod. we're going to set priorities today and do the tough things people sent us to do and that means cutting, capping and balancing the federal budget. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. without objection, the gentleman from maryland is back and is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. again, the choice is not whether we put in place a plan to reduce the deficit and balance the budget. the issue is how we do that.
was named o'brion. we will focus on what we need to do to get as that big rocket that allows us to go exploring. we can move beyond our home planet. today is a great day to celebrate. there are a lot of highs and lows as we give hugs and say goodbyes and take pride in what we have accomplished. it is pretty amazing. >> it has been a heck of a day and a program. i had the same kind of sentiment. i am incredibly proud to be here representing the thousands of people that do the work. to the kennedy team is doing an amazing job. you solve this performed almost flawlessly. almost hardly any issues. the teams back at johnson space center is world class. there is none better for flying the plan. they lead an amazing team of folks. then our friends up in the marshall space center. they have incredible hardware to get this up into orbit every time. it has been fantastic here in the home stretch. we have been talking about finishing strong and finishing on the target. when you the back, the shuttle program has racked up quite a history. we did 1300 days in orbit. this is about 43 months of time
industries a mindless handout. the big oil companies getting a handout. it's much easier to retain that benefit and it's very difficult to save medicare. it's a simple majority that can end medicare. many of us go home every week, others as frequently as they can because of the distance they have to travel to get to their districts, and we're greeted by signs like this. hands off my medicare. and it's no wonder because what we've seen yesterday was the third attempt in this few months of the 112th congress, to end medicare. three votes, one with a republican study committee, one with the ryan plan, the path to prosperity which we have redesignated the road to ruin and yesterday with the cut, slash, and burn attempt. i won't get into the nomenclature because it's inappropriate and misrepresenting what would really happen. yesterday we had a vote on this floor to make it easy to end medicare and easy to maintain handouts to the oil company. when we look at the dollars that are saved by ending medicare, we see where they somehow are transitioned over to tax cuts that are maintained fo
loudly. they wanted a democrat that would protect medicare, and wouldn't end medicare nor fund for big companies. based on that, we think there would be similar referendum on ending medicare. host: you are calling your campaign to recruit candidates for 2012 to 2025. spain to us kwla that is about. guest: after the election when we got shalacked, we needed 25 seats to retake the majority. the branding is already stale. we have that election in new york. it is no longer the drive for 25, it is 24. that's the number of seats we need to retake the majority in the house of representatives, protect medicare, protect social security, make sure kids can afford to go to college. make sure there are enough cops on the street. protect homeland security. it will take 24 seats for us to do that. host: the people suggesting your job is tough all year. you are defending a smaller number of seats in play. guest: i will suggest to you this is not an easy job. i will say the data counters, the pundwits, have said the hurt l is the republican. they have to curtain -- they have to appeal to those incumbe
, and it does not get any stronger than fdr. were big business interests attacking fdr at the time? you better believe it. they plotted a coup against him. he said i welcome their hatred, but i am coming. he came and did a new deal for this country and the middle- class. we created a middle-class between 1947 and 1977, the income of the bottom fifth group at a higher rate than the top fifth. that seems unimaginable now. look what happened. when you care about the middle- class, and democrats cared about the middle class, they fought for the middle class. fdr did that, and even up to the 1970's, liberals were so strong, they got richard nixon to pass that dpj, to start the epa. can you imagine? you had ralph nader running roughshod in the 1970's. seat belts, osha, the list goes on and on. of all the regulations we did to help real america, why did it change? people say ronald reagan. it was before reagan. supreme court -- two supreme court decisions made all the difference. political speech was a first amendment right. the disaster began there. in 1978, first national bank of boston said that c
a story saying that big mortgages are back. the financial times and its financial section has two stories of highlights, one talking about stress tests and you may have remembered those from a few years ago done in the united states to test the fiscal capabilities of u.s. banks. this takes a look at european banks. but the one story from new york this morning looks at city baverbing looking at their profits, surging 24% to $3.3 billion. city results mirrors jp morgan. we have been talking about the notion of comfroms when it comes to discussions about the debt and should congress members of the congress republicans primarily as far as these discussions go, and the president, compromise on their ideals when it comes to debt talks? all available for you to join us. e-mail and twitter as well. new jersey. go ahead. caller: good morning. i would just like to say that i wish that the congress would do like the president said and try to put aside their issues just this once. so that the country can be saved economically. i'm so tired of the posturing that they continue to do in the house of rep
on every aspect of our society to get this problem under control. >> [inaudible] >> everyone agrees a big deal with the best. the president says that. i believe that. the folks behind the believe that. we still believe it is possible to have a comprehensive proposal here that in a serious way addresses this enormous debt problem we have. i have not given up hope that that may happen yet. thanks a lot. >> a group of senate democrats held their own news conference, where they reiterated their demand that any budget agreement include more tax revenues from those making more than a million dollars a year. this news conference begins with a michigan senator. this is half an hour. >> good afternoon. on april 15, the house of representatives voted to end medicare. the wanted to use that money to balance the budget. rather than using it to balance the budget, they used it for huge new giveaways to millionaires and special interests. their plan protect spending on massive tax earmarked for drug companies, oil companies, companies that outsource jobs, and well-connected special interests. let me ju
procedure, the regular order but have attempted to solve this big problem in secret, behind closed doors with just a few people. i believe that is contrary to the historical understanding of the role of congress and i'm not happy about it, i oppose it and i object to it and i expect an appropriate amount of time to consider whatever plan comes >> with titles like "slander," and coulter has something to say. now, your chance to talk to the best-selling author. in death, for three hours starting at noon on both tv. >> the former u.s. comptroller general david walker of the nation pose a growing debt and budget deficit challenges. from "washington journal,", this is 30 minutes. the former u.s. comptroller general and now founder and ceo of the comeback american initiative, david walker print a good morning. forve said it is a bad idea the congress and president to flirt, so to speak, with the august 2nd deadline of hitting a possible debt default. what do you think is going on right now and are concerned there is not a deal in place yet? guest: i am concerned. if everybody is true to their
with the pie. [unintelligible] host: do you think that this is a big deal at all? in aer: in a way, yes, and a way, no. he is a nice man, but he is too old. it takes a man that this young to do something like that host: do you think you could run all of those companies? caller: me? i am a painter. host: i know. i have your painting in my office. caller: my wife is looking at me and telling me to tell you good morning. host: good morning. send me your e-mail address and i will send you a picture of it in profit -- in my office. caller: listen, my wife's birthday is tomorrow, she turned 81. host: that is right. you married an older woman. mr. peterson, you enjoy that heat wave in texas. we have got to get moving. we appreciate it. this would message, regarding the phone hacking scandal -- host: mike is a republican in arizona. hello. caller: i can see this going on in great britain, i guess the police are involved. but then they are doing it for us in the same manner. scanning e-mails, looking for certain words and what ever. i do not see any difference. i mean, they are exchanging inform
objective of the reform is the madigan threats to stability imposed by the too big to fail problem. here in the act takes a two- pronged approach. this includes enhanced risk based requirement, credit limits, stress testing, and remediation regime and activities restrictions. the fed and other agencies face the challenge of aligning regulation with international agreements. these efforts are going well. the federal reserve and expects to issue rules over site of cfis this summer and we are on schedule to implement basel 3. and being too big to fail requires allowing a cfi to fail. the second part of the act empowers the fed and the fdic to reduce the affect on the system in the event of a failure to tools such as liquidation of authority and approve a resolution planning. the federal reserve is working with the fdic to thecfis prepare for resolution by adopting living wills. the joint rule is expected this summer. reducing the likelihood of a severe crisis requires strengthening the resilience of markets an infrastructure. toward that end, provisions to improve the transparency and stabi
institutional behavior from the big multinational corporations and others trying to deprecate as much as they can to make americans believe that the jury system is not a part of their legacy but instead a drag on the a economy and a place where runaway jury is entertained frivolous lawsuits. every american who hears the word "jury" and has the phrase "runaway jury" jump in their mind, every american who hears the word "lawsuit" and has a word "frivolous lawsuit" jump in their mind, has been the subject of indoctrination about this and of public communication. it is happening out there and i think when the supreme court is making decisions that are consistent with that long standing practice and pattern, it is worth our attention and i applaud the chairmen for holding this hearing. anybody who wishes to add information to the hearing has a week before we close it could without anything further, we will be adjourned. thank you all very much. i appreciate it. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> every saturday
thereafter, qaddafi took over and the big issue was my god they're going to raise the price of oil from $5 a barrel. >> that's an interesting observation. you did refer to, with respect to the resupply, that the president himself said, how about lining up aircraft carriers to get them there. there was resistance in the defense department and the state department. they were trying to think what to do, but president nixon because that issues box and because he thought it out in advance, said, we're going to do this, how about doing it this way, let's get done, and the consequences of that stretched out many years. >> what else would be new in the state department for a white house initiative? >> let me ask since we're coming out with all these inside baseball stories, something about his long enduring concern with maintaining an effective relationship with the chinese, and that relates to his reaction to the shoot-up of the students. he privately made it very clear to president bush that the relationship with china could not be destroyed by the public reaction to the shooting of the student
and dime the people who need it most but when it comes to war, there's a big, fat blank check. we need to be honest with ourselves. we need to be honest with each other. across the country, the americans, hard working, tax paying citizens who oppose war. they oppose their hard earned dollars being sent overseas to support 10 long years of war. but let me be clear. they do not oppose paying their taxes. they are not anarchists rr anti-government activists. but as conscientious objectors to war these americans want their taxes invested here at home. think want to provide food for the homeless, pave roads and strong schools. they want medicare and social security to exist for their parents, their children and their grandchildren. they want their tax dollars to care for soldiers and their families when they return home. they will see an end and cure to cancer. they want a cure for aids. they want to see small business thrive. and innovation become the en-in of our economy. they want high speed rail like in asia. they want transit systems that are safe and get people where they knead to go.
to be an american? not a big change when president obama came to office. what does that say to you? guest: remarkable continuity about something that is very important in defining this as a people. it does not seem to matter whether we have a democratic or republican president. we are patriotic nonetheless. host: james, pittsburg, republican line. caller: my comment is that you have to poll the younger crowd and they are the strongest and the fastest and most easily -- and it is easier for them to take in all the information they have take in. they are more alterable to become a soldier and not many of them are politically savvy. once they get into the war, they are generally -- most of the men i know that have come back especially from this war and from vietnam, they speak to the fact that they were fighting for its other. host: we will leave it there. guest: that is true. men who have had that experience in war talk about it that way. they also love their country. one of the things we see, it's a hard thing to take polls of soldiers because it's tough to do. but when you do, they are ve
the big fight's going going to be over the debt ceiling limit. that's where the hard negotiations are going to be put out. and then they will probably be given a new number, and they'll have to revisit that bill that they've worked on in committee and meet the new number. so if that's what happens, it's probably a good thing. host: so first things first. guest: look, here's what each department or each function of government is going to be getting, and then work out what you think you can get, the most bang for the buck, so to speak. host: let's get to calls for you. we're going to begin with a call from los angeles. michelle is a democrat there. you're on for david keating of the club for growth. caller: given that you made the comments about t republican candidate mitt romney has developed an unshakable reputation as a flip-flop per uses federal powers to coerce taxpayers, and tim pawlenty is hard to pin down, who do you like? guest: well, what the club for we haveohas been doing, published a series of white papers on many of the presidential candidates, all of those that have d
're now at the president's big deal target, which we're not going to meet under the gang of six or any of the other constructs around here, cancel the social security tax holiday, borrow the money one more year, invest it in infrastructure, put millions to work, when those millions go to work, they'll be paying taxes, that'll reduce the deficit by about another quarter. we solved 3/4 of the problem without killing programs essential to the american people and without cutting taxes on the job creators. the gang of six is proposing that billionaires should see their taxes cut by about 25% or 30% that will help us balance the budget. time to get back to the real world and out of "alice in wonderland." the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson, for five minutes. mr. tompson: thank you, mr. speaker. since 1947, every august, the little league baseball world series is held in pennsylvania within pennsylvania's fifth congressional district. each year, little league international recognizes little league gradua
. president. my name is amanda. i am a big fan. i am originally from iowa. >> nice. >> yes. i am an atheist. in 2008, you asserted no organization receiving taxpayer funds would be able to discriminate in hiring or firing based on a person's religion. however, you've not rescinded the executive order that permits this discrimination. when it is difficult for a person to get a job based on her skills, what would you say to a woman who has been denied employment because of her religion or lack of religious beliefs by a taxpayer funded organization? >> this is a very difficult issue, but a more narrow one and i think might be implied. it is very straightforward that people should not be discriminated against for race, gender, sexual orientation or religious affiliation. what has happened is there has been a carved out dating back to president clinton's presidency for religious organizations and they're hiring for particular purposes, and this is always a tricky part of the first amendment. on the one hand, the first amendment ensures there's freedom of religion. on the other hand, we want to m
and other democrats. it's not about increasing taxes for anyone. it's about getting rid of some of the big businesses who do not need these extra funds. host: phil in orlando, florida, an independent. what are your thoughts? caller: good morning. we should work on a grand bargain, instead of a mini-deal. to me, it is basic common sense. we need to get people moving in the process. it could be a national bordering program -- national program to do some work that would stimulate your psychological and social well-being. secondly, we should be making sure the parties are not playing politics and bowling to their constituents, who basically seem like the corporations that are running the government. host: would you characterize the tea party as a corporate complex? caller: the tea party has merits. we understand their protests. there seems to be sort of an ideology attached to it, as well, which is under the surface of the tea party. host: let's talk to william, a democrat in hollywood, florida. go ahead. ay the: i'm going to s grand deal. that's what we need to make. second of all, entitlemen
of this cut, cap, and balance. the would like a big deal as obama calls it. speaker john boehner is interested in that, but not much support in making a deal from his own caucus. willing to open his mind to a smaller deal. host: you can read more at com.olitico dot martin kady was joing us. thanks. we are looking at how this issue will be alert and impact the elections of politicians. should this make or break a congressional career? connecticut, good morning to you. caller: this is a great example of how it will have an impact on congressional careers. there are two factors. one is doing nothing, if it is presented as normal and responsible behavior, and to come up with specific cuts on the other hand and is portrayed as dangerous, republicans will pay a price, because the irresponsible behavior that got us into this. the other aspect is who do you believe? the president falsifying the health insurance aspect of his mother's cancer could be so troubling. if the president would make up false tales about what health insurance companies did or did not do for his mother, imagine what he would say
is a fortune and costly at my 13-foot wide townhouse nearby the capitol and heating costs is a big issue in oregon. the building technologies program reduces the costs until homes and buildings by fostering private-public partnership to develop techniques and tools for making homes and businesses more affordable, productive and efficient. according to the department of energy, the building technologies program has resulted in fully 14 -- $14 billion of direct savings to the consumer, savings that has been re-invested in local economies. additionally since its founding 20 years ago, the building technologies program has saved the equivalent of over 12 billion gallons of gasoline. this amendment would return the building technologies program to just its current fiscal year 2011 funding level. this amendment will cost nothing extra, because it is fully offset by taking funds from the office of the secretary. according to the energy and water appropriations subcommittee report, quote, a significant fraction of the funding directed in prior appropriations reports to specified energy efficienc
. we've heard from a number of big name performers now who said they got their entry the development of their career, through the n.e.a. some gave back by developing a theater in communities that they thought had seen their best days behind them and yet by uniting the community, it's clear now their best days are ahead of them because young people want to stay in that community. they're excited about the arts that are provided. this program does so much with so little. and yet the gentleman wants to cut $10.6 million, that's .03% of nondefense discretionary funding. we had $174 million in the fiscal year 2011 bill. it was cut down to $155 million, ultimately, for f.y. 2011. now it's been cut another $20 million, down to $135 million. i know my good friend from idaho, the chair of the committee, wishes and knows it should be more. but i think most of us, when we reflect, understand that if we continue to take money from programs that provide so much to really the heart and soul of this nation, we will lose those abilities, those instruments we have to reduce the harshness and rancor t
and echoing my call to end subsidies for big oil. it's a call that received a bipartisan vote here in the sete, a bipartisan majority vote here in the senate, but, of course, did not pass. did not as if because of our colleaguescolleagues' insistenca filister for a supermajority amount. but it's time that our friends on the other side of the aisle put the interests of taxpayers ahead of big oil and allow these wasteful subsidies to finally end. as the president said, we have strategies to reduce the deficit. like my legislation to cut oil subsidies that are already introduced and ready to go. and all we have to do is pass it. and a vote to allow that to happen is a simple choice for everyone in this chamber. are you on the side of working-class families and seniors? or are you on the side of big oil? now, there are lots of ways to cut the deficit, but saving taxpayer subsidies for big oil while ending medicare as wenow it and cutting student loans is not, in my mind, a solution. it makes no sense, mr. president, to give a taxpayer h. funde of it funded o the big five oil companies earning huge
but your book "the big sort" goes beyond that and doesn't talk about the sorting out that occurred at the sort of the political class level but you go much deeper of the sorting out that's kird among -- occurred among americans. give us the overview of how you came into this. >> we came into it because we were interested in why. i lived from kentucky and moved to texas. we wanted to know why some places were getting richer and other places were getting poorer. what we found was that overtime places in the united states are getting increasingly different from one another in a fundamental way. so for instance, up until the early 19 0's most cities were getting closer together in terms of the percentage of people who lived there, percentage of adults with b.a. degrees. since that time until the last figures i looked at in 2009, most places were falling away from the mean. people with college degrees are clustering in some places and abandoning areas. the same with true with patent production. so economic production began to differ increasingly from place to place. income differential
special interests and big corporations tax breaks that middle-class americans do not get. it is pretty simple. i do not think oil companies should continue to get big tax breaks when they make tens of billions in profits. i do not think hedge fund managers should pay taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries. i do not think it is fair to ask nothing of someone like me when the average family sees their income decline over the last decade. when many of you are just trying to stretch every $1 as far as it will go. we should not put the burden of deficit reduction on the backs of people who have already borne the brunt of this recession. it is not reasonable and it is not right. if we are going to have seniors, students, middle-class americans to separate, then we have to ask corporations and wealthy americans to share. we have to ask everyone to play their part because we are all a part of the same country. we are all in this together. i have put things on the table important to me and democrats, and i expect republican leaders to do the same. after all, we have worked together like t
stopped. the party of wall street bailouts, big bank buddies, were denying our families basic protection from credit abuses. mr. doggett: the lyrics of steve earl who grew up on the edge of san antonio ring true for so many families, you go to school, and learn to read and write, so you can walk into the bank and sign away your life. so many families were deceived by taking out mortgages or credit card or payday loan on terms that only in the fine print did the big lenders understand. many of these families were counting on a home, on a job, on a retirement plan, or maybe with their credit card just to put clothes on the kids and food on the family's table. nobody was there to protect them from the tricks and traps that some creditors used to enrich themselves and fleeze consumers with loans with incredible interest rates. in too many of these transactions, what were once known as loan sharks can today legally ply their trade. if you're mugged on the street, you can lose your wallet. but if you're mugged on wall street you can lose a lifetime of savings. that's why we need this new squad
was a bit of a dandy. he was usually germany. the typical anarchist was heavy set with a big beard. he died his hair black. he always wore nice clothes. he became a leader of the anarchist community in chicago. he created a whole subculture of anarchist and social revolutionaries. >> what did they believe? >> all sorts of things. even among people who call themselves anarchists, it was a fairly aggressive group that he got around him. it was at one of his speeches in 1886 in chicago that he had finished speaking. it was a rainy and stormy night. they left it to go to a bar in the rain. a policeman arrived. someone on the sidewalk, we do not know who, tossed a bomb into the police. one person was killed. a number of others were wounded by the way. the police panicked and shot fires into the crowd. they probably hit each other more than the crowd. a policeman died in all. -- eight policemen died in all. this is a devastating attack on the country. there were rumors that anarchist would take over city hall. maybe this is the first attack in a takeover of the entire nation. there was a massive
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 161 (some duplicates have been removed)